Abstract

This paper presents the findings from a study investigating
current practice in course design at the UHI Millennium Institute in the
Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The issues
considered include choice of communications media, limitations in use, and
course design approaches. The paper concludes that a model utilising five
dimensions of flexibility is a good conceptual base for the analysis of
distributed learning courses. A mix of educational technologies is the preferred
model in the survey and is an essential component of good teamwork when the
course designers are not co-located. There was general agreement amongst
respondents that a mix of technology-based education encourages flexibility in
accessing resources and promotes self-directed learning by students.

This review of some of the literature on blended learning and
distributed learning suggests that course design should be student-centred,
provide a flexible, interactive and dynamic learning environment yet have a
rationale for the choice of media and methods used on the course. Sharp et al ( 2006 p 3) in a comprehensive review, found that "student response is
overwhelmingly positive to the provision of online course information to
supplement traditional teaching.". Individual case studies and evaluations of
distributed learning courses abound in the literature (e.g. Matheos & Archer
2004; McConnell et al 2004;Langenbach & Bodendorf 1997), but remarkably few of
these articles have a central focus on the design process, most preferring to
report on student or faculty satisfaction with the results of the 'delivery' of
a course or module. The research described here aimed to discover how course
design for distributed learning takes place in practice. What rationale
determines media choice? What assumptions do course designers make about
students' readiness to engage with particular media? What implications are there
in terms of student support?

The UHI Millennium Institute in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is a
distributed Higher Education Institute spread over 15 academic partners
and more than 50 local learning centres, covering in excess of 40,000 km2 of northern Scotland, including over 90 inhabited islands and some of the most
sparsely populated corners of mainland UK. Since 1993, the UHI has focused on
bringing higher education opportunities to people in geographically dispersed
locations throughout the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and by recent
extension, to other parts of the UK and Europe. These students are typically
cast as 'remote students' (i.e. remote from the main teaching campus, but the
essential point is that students do not need to leave their home area in order
to pursue their studies.. As a federated network of 15 existing colleges and
research centres, it is spread over a very wide geographical area with the
second lowest population density in Europe. There is no university actually
located within this large region, although a number of of Higher Education
institutes have supported students in the region through distance and
distributed learning. UHI offers access courses in further education and
vocational training, right through to undergraduate and postgraduate degrees.
There is some specialisation of subjects by the different colleges, but most
degree courses are delivered jointly across the UHI network. This means that the
aim of networked courses is to ensure that wherever the student is located, a
range of courses can be studied. For these reasons, distributed learning (as
defined below) represents and attractive solution to enable the UHI to deliver
diverse formats of educational resources (usually, but not always, digital)
throughout the region. A key characteristic of UHI is therefore the networking
of courses, such that students in any location can study courses delivered from
other parts of the network that are offered using a range of advanced
technologies that can supplement or replace face-to-face tuition. Furthermore,
UHI aims to be responsive to the local (region-specific) context in its choice
of curriculum and research focus. Examples of this would include the Masters
Degree in Managing Sustainable Rural/Mountain Development and the undergraduate
programmes in Gaelic and North Atlantic Studies, or Rural and Remote Health
Studies.

From this context it can be seen that the UHI has a strong
interest in the support of distributed learning systems that are flexible enough
to permit easy access to multi-mode educational resources, over a wide
geographical area, to small rural communities on islands and mountainous
locations. Even in a higher education institution such as this, however, there
is a great diversity of perception of the definition, function, and design of
distributed educational resources, so a short synthesis of some relevant
literature will serve to provide clarity on the common ground. Amongst the
plethora of definitions of distributed learning, there is little common ground.
For some, the practice is synonymous with distance learning and elearning (e.g. Oblinger et al 2001); for others it is identical to the term blended
learning (e.g. Bonk & Graham 2006). While blended learning is also a contentious
term, it generally refers to a combination of face-to-face and online learning
(such as using elearning to complement classroom activity or vice-versa). A
recent study into the undergraduate experience of blended e-learning in the UK
(Sharp et al 2006) comprehensively explored recent literature and practice, to
come up with some key "recommendations to guide future policy, practice, and
research." This report forms important background reading to the present paper,
but a slightly wider interpretation is taken here to accommodate the fact that
a) blended learning may take place on one campus (i.e. without necessarily any
geographical distribution) and b) distributed learning, although combining
distance and elearning, may not necessarily include any face-to-face activity
(as is normally implicit in the term 'blended learning').

For the purposes of this article, we will assume the following
properties define distributed learning:

The components of the course are distributed across multiple media and this
tends to imply a certain amount of choice of media as well as a tendency
towards supporting a student-centred learning approach (Vovides et al,
2007).

Distributed learning can be used to augment traditional classroom-based
courses, to deliver distance education courses or to create wholly online
courses.

Providing flexibility for students in terms of time and/or location of
study is one key aim of the pedagogy of distributed learning.

Schematically, the relationship between blended learning,
elearning, and distributed learning can be illustrated by the following diagram.
Note that face-to-face tuition can form a component of a blended learning course
but not a distance learning course as, strictly, the co-location required by
face-to-face tuition is mutually incompatible with teaching at a distance (i.e.
the introduction of face-to-face tuition to a distance learning course transforms
it, by default, into blended learning.

The apparent lack of consistency amongst the various definitions
can be explained by the fact that distance education and campus-based teaching
are converging due to the growth of ICT and the web, as well as the growing
student demand for flexible learning options (Tait & Mills 1999). A number of
universities that introduced online courses as a way of attracting new learners,
have found to their dismay that their campus students opt for these courses,
often creating their own blend by taking one online course plus several
face-to-face courses (Young 2002). Across the sector, provision is moving
towards a pattern characterised by short intensive face-to-face interventions
punctuating longer periods of independent or group study facilitated by learning
technologies (Middlehurst 2002). Distributed learning has arisen as a term which
bridges educational practice from face-to-face to distance learning (Lea & Nicoll 2002). The availability of new learning technologies, both synchronous
and asynchronous, has added depth and richness to the potential of distributed
education. The UHI is a very heavy user of videoconferencing for Higher
Education and also hosts is own online learning environment (VLE) that combines
asynchronous (discussion boards, email, tutorial resources, online libraries)
with synchronous (instant messaging, Skype audio and video) interaction between
tutors and students. New communication tools such as Instant Messaging, Skype
shared whiteboard technologies, and reflective tools such as blogging, wikis,
and eportfolios have been added to long-established means of asynchronous
communications (print, email, discussion boards etc.) to become part of the
distributed learning designer's palette of options in creating dynamic and
varied educational environments.

According to existing literature, one of the key factors in
designing courses with a high level of flexibility must be the development of a
student-centred, rather than teacher-centred learning environment (Meyers and
Jones 1993;Motschnig-Pitrik and Holzinger2002;EIC 2004;Gudmundsson &
Matthiasdottir 2004). Based on constructivist theories of learning,
student-centred approaches to course design create an environment in which
learners discover or work out for themselves an understanding of the subject or
concept through critical analysis and reflection, often in conjunction with
other learners. By combining a range of media and communication modes, the
course no longer consists of one authorised version of knowledge such as is
conveyed by a lecture or a textbook. The resources of the web, the interactions
with other learners, the guidance of the teacher, and the experiences resulting
from collaborative activities all combine to effectively distribute the inputs
of the course so that the onus shifts to the student to construct their own
understanding of the topic. Relan and Gillani (1997) confirm this analysis of
the impact of distributed education:

"The predominant source of content shifts from the textbook and the teacher
to a more varied source of information. Further, the nature of the content
becomes dynamic, versus the static texts published on a certain date." (Relan &
Gillani 1997: 44)

The role of the teacher or tutor is to generate an infrastructure
for constructive interaction and to help students individually and collectively
to negotiate their own meaning. The course designer, who may or may not be the
same as the teacher or tutor, needs to understand the strengths and weaknesses
of available technologies and to know something about the background of the
potential students, and about students' expectations (Lohnes and Kinzer, 2007).
Even with this understanding, it is still problematic for course designers to
decide what components to use and where to start.

A key component in the provision of a variety of different
educational resources is to allow the students to enhance their cognitive
self-regulation, and Vovides et al (2007, section 6.4) summarise this as meaning
that a course management system "should inspire, motivate, and guide students to
develop self-regulated learning cognitive skills. This means that students are
guided to play an active role in learning, become self-organized, and
independent, and actively participate in the learning process to construct their
knowledge." Later they conclude that "e-learning environments within a CMS
should address learners' diversity in terms of metacognitive skills, learning
styles, prior knowledge, and cultures" (ibid, section 10.) The skill in the
design of distributed learning is to match the learning objectives of the
'course' to the learning needs of the students, using appropriate media and
individually relevant educational resources. Anecdotal evidence, however,
suggests that many courses are technology-led; that is, a new piece of software
appears to be gaining followers, so the course designers decide to 'have a go
with it'. This can result in technologies being peripheral to the core content
of the course. Students immediately detect this and avoid engaging at all or
only superficially with this component. In some cases communication technologies
are used on a course where only a proportion of students have access.

In a practical guide for the UK Quality Assurance Agency, Casey
and Wilson (2006) provided a theoretical and practical framework to consider
flexible learning in the context of Further and Higher Education, and this is
also a good conceptual starting point for investigating the flexibility of
distributed learning. In particular, the "five dimensions of flexibility"
proposed by Collis and Moonen, (2004) formed a useful framework to formulate the
questions for staff interviews and could perhaps be further developed as an
empirical tool for quantifying the level of flexibility of distributed learning
courses.

In this context also, it is worth considering the proposed model
for analysis and implementation of flexible programme delivery offered by
Normand and Littlejohn (2006) although they acknowledge the fact that that their
selected case studies reflect an "instructor-offered flexibility" rather than a
more comprehensive institutional approach.

It is well established in academic literature that a considered
approach to designing distributed learning courses is to begin with learning
outcomes.

"As we become more learner-centered, instructors move from covering content
to helping students master learning outcomes. This transition can have profound
impact on how faculty structure their courses and curricula, and generally leads
to increased interest in depth of processing rather than breadth of coverage."
(Allen 2004)

Learning outcomes are specific understandings or skill sets that a
student is expected to achieve at the end of a learning experience. They can be
applied to a course, a programme, or a complete degree. The use of learning
outcomes as the focus of course design provides a rationale for the selection of
resources and media.

"Outcome-based education is a method of teaching that focuses on what
students can actually do after they are taught. All curriculum and teaching
decisions are made based on how best to facilitate the desired outcome. This
leads to a planning process in reverse of traditional educational planning. The
desired outcome is selected first and the curriculum is created to support the
intended outcome." (Lorenzen 1999)

The use of learning outcomes as a starting point for course design
generally has become standard practice in UK higher education in recent years
(QAA 1999). At least four factors are implied in this approach:

What the student is to learn must be clearly identified.

This must be achievable and demonstrable.

The course should provide multiple instructional and assessment strategies
in order that each student can demonstrate what they have learned.

The course design must allow adequate time and provide adequate assistance
so that each student can reach the maximum potential (Towers 1996).

This raises the difficulty, however, that the encouragement of a
diverse range of learning resources, and the promotion of highly student-centred
learning, does not sit well with the rigid definition of the 'successful' or
'acceptable' learning outcomes solely by the tutor prior to the start of the
course. The recognition of flexible, student-regulated ways of learning would
also seem to imply a greater student say in the value of the learning outcomes
and a shift in the power relationships between tutor and learner. Delialioglu
and Yildirim (2007) claim that "the design, development, and implementation
processes for a blended learning environment are different from those in a
purely traditional, face-to-face course or a purely web-based course", (p 144)
and they identified a number of factors relating to the effective dimensions of
interactive learning by students, including student motivation, metacognitive
support, authentic learning activities, and opportunities for individualised
learning.

This paper focuses on what choices are being made by practitioners
and for what reasons. How do course designers decide what technologies to use?
What considerations underpin their design solutions?

A short pilot questionnaire, consisting of ten structured
questions, was distributed to Course Leaders throughout the UHI, in order to
survey their attitudes towards course design. The rationale for the questions in
both the questionnaire and the following interviews was to probe the extent to
which Course Leaders currently have utilised educational technology in their
course, how had course teams selected these resources, and what was their
experience of implementation. The respondents were asked to provide information
through such questions as "What forms of communication does your course utilise
for interaction between tutor/teacher and learners?" and "In your own context,
for your students, what do you consider to be the optimum method of providing a
good learning experience?" (both questions gave a selection of options)
Respondents were also questioned on their use of new technologies by checking
their level of agreement with a number of statements relating to relevant staff
training, pre-course preparation, and their use of technologies during the
delivery of their courses. A simple Likert scale of classification was used to
categorise responses. The questionnaire was completed online using the software
available at http://www.surveymonkey.com and all UHI Course
Leaders, were emailed with a personalized note seeking their response. A total
of 49 course leaders were invited and 40 responded. In addition, 10 of course
leaders were selected at random for a more detailed, semi-structured interview
to probe their current practice in the flexible design of courses and learning
resources. The Course Leaders selected for interview were drawn from a pool of
those who were self-identified from the questionnaire as experienced in the
design of distributed learning resources and willing to participate in a
follow-on interview. The online questionnaire was used to assess the broad,
strategic picture of attitudes towards the use of distributed learning resources
among UHI Course Leaders, while the smaller pool of structured interviews was
utilised to follow up on some specific issues and the individual detail of the
use of certain popular resources, such as the videoconferencing or the VLE, as
well as issues that claimed to be course or discipline specific. Although the
Course Leaders are key decision-makers and have an important function in
relation to the overall design of their courses, there are two main limitations
of this method. The first is that it relies upon the Course Leaders to summarise
the attitudes of the course team as a whole and to provide a consistent
overview, while from experience we can expect that, even within a close team,
individual team members may have very different levels of experience,
competence, and enthusiasm for different forms of educational technology.
Secondly, the Course Leaders are middle management academics, and by job
definition they are going to be more involved in the course design and delivery
process that the majority of the 'rank and file' academic staff, so unless we
survey the entire academic staff, the perceptions obtained cannot be truly
reflective of the whole academic institution.

Course designers were first questioned about current practices and
attitudes (Table 1). Although this is an example of a networked higher education
institution, with the institution having a number of inter-linked,
geographically scattered campuses, there was still a high number (32%) of
respondents who indicated that interaction between tutor/teacher and learners
was mainly face-to-face. Nevertheless, nearly half indicated that they did not
use a lot of face-to-face or never used it. While 63% reported that they used
email a lot, or as their main means of course interaction, no-one claimed that
they did not use it, and this contrasts sharply with more traditional means of
contact, e.g. only 5% indicate that they mainly use distance-based print
materials (30% never) and 8% mainly residential attendance (57% never) as
compared with 35% who mainly use a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) and
a further30% who use the VLE a lot for tutor-learner interaction (only
12% never). Surprisingly only 3% use audio conference facilities as the main
means of interaction (49% never and a further 32% indicate not a lot of use) and
this contrasts against the higher level of technology required for
videoconferencing (VC) where 10% regarded this as their main means of
interaction, with a further 21% using it a lot (33% never, and 18% not a lot).
The use of discussion boards for interaction was fairly evenly spread across all
categories, but no-one claimed that very recent technology such as instant
messaging, skype audio, or Vskype/netmeeting was a main means of communication
to promote interaction.

Table 1.What forms of communication does your course
utilise for interaction between tutor/teacher and learners?

Mainly

A Lot

Some

Not a Lot

Never

Face-to-face

32.5%

15.0%

10.0%

25.0%

17.5%

Distance-based print materials

5.4%

13.5%

37.8%

13.5%

29.7%

Email

17.5%

45.0%

32.5%

5.0%

0.0%

Videoconference

10.3%

20.5%

17.9%

17.9%

33.3%

Audioconference

2.7%

2.7%

13.5%

32.4%

48.6%

Virtual Learning Environment(VLE)

35.0%

30.0%

10.0%

12.5%

12.5%

Online discussion board

25.0%

12.5%

15.0%

22.5%

25.0%

Instant messaging

0.0%

8.3%

2.8%

22.2%

66.7%

Skype audio

0.0%

2.8%

5.6%

2.8%

88.9%

Skype video or Netmeeting

0.0%

5.6%

2.8%

5.6%

86.1%

Residential attendance

8.1%

2.7%

16.2%

16.2%

56.8%

CD or DVD

2.7%

8.1%

24.3%

18.9%

45.9%

Other

4.3%

0.0%

26.1%

26.1%

43.5%

Although a high majority claimed never to use these media tools
there was also a small but significant proportion of innovative courses that
appear to be experimenting in their use, generally around 10-12% but rising to
22% with the introduction of instant messaging. The UHI is currently the biggest
user of videoconferencing for Higher Education in Europe, and one course
leader summarised as;

"I think it would be fair to say that the process of using vc
[videoconferencing] is in a sense historical ….The VLE is something that has
been added to the mix, and they have become more important over the years …. and
that has changed the character of the vc sessions as well. They are now much
less about broadcasting a formal lecture and are much more about discussion…."
[respondent 1]

Staff in the survey overwhelming agreed that "the competent use
of educational technology gives students better access to self-directed learning",
but there was less unanimity with regard to whether it gave students better
access to tutors. The majority (84%) were in broad agreement that "the
competent use of educational technology gives students better access to tutors
than 'traditional' (face-to-face) teaching systems" (50% partially agree,
21% agree, 13% strongly agree). Only 2 course leaders (5%) disagreed strongly
with this statement. There was a high expectation that "students are expected
to have a basic competence in using online resources" (21% agree strongly,
37% agree, 29% agree partially) but also a recognition that "students will
also require some pre-course training" (18% agree strongly, 50% agree, 29%
agree partially). There was a general recognition of the "expectation to
provide a helpdesk support for students during the course" ( 24% agree
strongly, 39% agree, 26% agree partially).

When asked to "consider the optimum method of providing a good
learning experience for their own students", the provision of a VLE was
generally the most popular (33% would mainly use VLE, 41% would use it a lot and
21% would make some use of it) with 0% saying that it would never form part of
their optimum solution. The use of email also featured strongly (42% would use
some email, 32% a lot, and 18% mainly use email). Closely behind was a strong
element of face-to-face (f2f) contact (34% prefer as a main use, 21% would use
it a lot, and 26% would use some f2f). Significantly 18% said that they would
use very little or no face-to-face interaction in their optimal tutorial mix.
The nature of f 2f contact was not defined, (i.e. lectures, small groups,
individuals) but 41% of course designers indicated that they would favour some
residential attendance and a further 18% said that they would prefer this as a
major or main method of providing a good learning experience. The use of
videoconferencing seems a popular blend in this optimal mix, with 36% favouring
some use, a further 21% suggesting a lot of use. Only 8% proposed that VC would
be a main medium in promoting a good learning experience. Audio conferencing
faired less well, with 38% saying that they would not use it a lot (16%
never) and only 14% suggesting that it should be used a lot (no-one selected
this as a main media). The use of newer technologies such as skype (audio and
video) and instant messaging were much less popular with 59% indicating that
they would never use skype audio and 53% never using skype video or Netmeeting.
Very small numbers were in favour of using these media a lot or as main
communication tools (generally around 10%) and this may partly reflect the ad
hoc nature of these media as well as the comparative unfamiliarity that staff
felt for this new technology. In contrast online discussion boards were popular
( 21% as a main use, 32% a lot of use and 32% made some use) as well as the
distribution of CD/DVD resources (52% some use, 24% a lot of use).

As a general rule, the course designers appear to prefer a
diversity of communications and resource tools rather than placing an
over-reliance upon one or two media. The respondents have been very cautious in
stating their main choice of communications media for providing a good learning
experience for their students, the most popular being face-to-face ( 34%)
followed by VLE (33%) and then discussion boards ( 21%) which are incorporated
in the VLE. The least favoured options were generally the newer media (instant
messaging, skype, Vskype, or Netmeeting) although this does not indicate a
straight preference for face-to-face contact or residential attendance. In the
supporting justification as to why tutors preferred their selected methods of
interaction the most frequent open-ended comments emphasized three important
factors;

The Learning Context – the situation of the student (and
tutorial staff) needs to be appropriate. This includes the geographical location
of the learner, and flexibility with their access, time, and work constraints.

"The type of students accessing this particular [course] need to be able to access materials as flexibly as possible due to more than 95% of them working at the same time as studying. This does restrict the
technologies used- but in my opinion it does not disadvantage them." [respondent 2]

"I don't necessarily think that face-to-face is better than
videoconferencing. All methods can be good if the technology works and they are
used wisely." [respondent 3]

Diversity – most staff interviewed were in agreement that a
blend of methods is best and that effort should be taken to allow learners to
select learning approaches that suit them best (although cost and compromise
were also considered important).

"I can access a wider group of people. Learning materials are
prepared well and can be easily updated, but [I] would like a variety of contact for tutorials, dependent on the students needs
i.e. if they can come in face-to-face , I see them (if numbers are viable) but
if they can't, [I] use audio conference or videoconference, whichever is
available. Finally, discussion boards log the comments permanently for students
to review throughout the module." [respondent 4]

"I don't necessarily prefer to deliver by VC and VLE but it
seems to provide the best (most cost effective) compromise for geographically
distributed students. Students and tutors alike agree that it is not a good way
to teach Maths." [respondent 5]

Practicality – staff were generally not wedded to dogmatic
solutions, and though they frequently acknowledged favourite media, they also
stressed the need to maintain flexibility in delivery as well as ensuring the
reliability of the chosen media.

"I prefer these [media] because I think they help to
generate meaningful interactions and keep constant contact with students, but it
doesn't have to be by video – audio and the written word are sufficient. The
human touch is still important" [respondent 6]

In the context of designing a new distributed course, 64% of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that they would try to select the most appropriate
delivery style for the student then write the course around those media. No
attempt was made at this stage to identify how they ascertain the student
opinion on what learners found most appropriate, but 41% of responding staff
agreed that the method of communicating with students that they themselves were
most comfortable with, was a key factor in their choice of media selection.
No-one disagreed with this statement. We recognise that this may present an
apparent contradiction and we propose to investigate this more closely as we
pursue this field of research.

Before starting to teach their new course, 62% of course designers
always "provide an induction or training event for learners in the technology
that will be used" on the course (only 3% never provide any element of
induction). There is a reasonably high expectation of prior technological skills
among learners, with 28% expecting "that learners will be technologically
competent to access learning resources electronically" before being accepted onto a course (36% often expecting this, 23% sometimes,
13% never). As perhaps might be anticipated, there is a high level of attention
given to "consideration of alternative forms of media for learning materials
and activities" at the course design stage (33% always, 38% often, 28%
sometimes) with no-one claiming that this never happens. Surprisingly, however,
only 26% state that they always "assess the individual student's technology
skills" before the course is taught (54% sometimes).

There is a strong indication that the expectations of course
designers have been conditioned, at least in part, by their own experiences of
educational technology, with 49% agreeing and 15% strongly agreeing that their
own "educational environment encourages diversity and experimentation in the
use of different learning resources" (no-one disagreed strongly with this
statement). This diversity and experimentation is supported by the fact that 46%
agree and 28% strongly agree that they "consider the manner in which students
learn to be as important as what they learn" (only 6% disagree or disagreed
strongly). Responses to the questionnaire indicated that just over half of the
course designers "always evaluate the student satisfaction with the
pedagogical mix" (i.e. not simply their satisfaction with the course
content) with a further 36% indicating that they at least partially consider
this in their course evaluation. Perhaps through a combination of the
circumstances above, there was a feeling that these Course Leaders "consciously
look for new ways of using technology to enable their students to understand
better". Most respondents agree that they have had some "specific
training in using the mix of technology that they currently employ", though
the questionnaire did not explore whether course designers had specific training
in media and methodology that they subsequently chose not to use in their distributed course design. This is significant as it became
unclear whether course designers did not include some new types of media (e.g.
Skype audio/video) simply because they were aware of the appearance of new
technologies that might aid them, or because they had tested them thoroughly and
found the new media unsuitable. This aspect will be expanded upon in further
interviews planned to extend the scope of this study.

A very high degree of agreement was indicated when respondents
were asked to select the three most important aspects of distributed course
design,

92% identified the
need to have clear learning objectives,

61% emphasized the
importance of understanding who the target learners are,

42% stressed the need
to articulate clear skills and assessments in the course design process.

Of lesser, but still significant importance it was recognized that
accommodating variations in students learning styles (29%) and the
identification of resources to aid their teaching (26%) are important aspects
of course design. Giving immediate feedback to learners (24%) and accommodating
the variations in learners objectives (11%) as part of the course design are
also worth noting. By contrast, this group of Course Leaders attributed
relatively little importance to assessing prerequisite knowledge of the subject
(5%) or of ICT (3%) or of controlling the order of course content ( 3%) or the
pace of course delivery (3%). The ability to control resources available to
learners was not regarded as being of any significant importance. Other comments
re-emphasized the need to contextualise and maximise the flexibility of access
to the course content, as well as seeking to ensure the relevance of the
learning outcomes to individual learners.

Table 2.In your own context,
for your students, what do you consider to be the optimum method of providing a
good learning experience?

Consideration of the three most significant limitations in the
current design of courses, in order to facilitate effective distributed
learning, produced rather less unanimity of response. The top response was,

The limitation of
making appropriate resources available to all learners (53%) followed by,

The difficulties in
ensuring the equivalence of the learning experience (45%)

Limitations on the
ability of learners to cope with the demands of technology (29%) came next
(though this would suggest clearer course specifications and more care to
pre-assessment of ICT skills and course induction training).

The limitations in
being able to provide appropriate feedback in time were considered important by
around a quarter of all respondents (26%).

Of equal concern in
this study were the limitations on the reliability of internet technology,
delivery costs, and support costs (all at 24%).

Providing depth in
feedback, and keeping track of learners' progress were also, to some extent,
recognized as potential limitations in current course design for distributed
delivery (both at 11%)

In response to an invitation for an open-ended comment on
limitations in current course design, three other main concerns were raised;

Time – the availability of adequate time for course preparation and
delivery, as well as juggling timetables with conflicting demands. Comment was
also made on adequate staff time required to learn appropriate technology based
teaching methods.

Specific media – some concern was raised regarding specific media, e.g.
videoconference links and booking system or modifications to the institutional
VLE, as well as common procedures and effective communication.

Peer support – Significantly, several comments related to the need to
focus on an effective system of course design for distributed learning that
encourages flexibility and trust between members of the programme team. Among
the most significant limitations, the following were mentioned;

"The myth that a lecturer has all the skills required to
develop an online course. It requires a team." [respondent 9]

also the recognition that

"[Some] course teams are distributed and they don't work
effectively together to provide an integrated product." [respondent 10]

Potential reasons for the inability of a course team to
effectively work together include,

"Programme team inflexibility and unwillingness to engage in
new design; non-collegial approach to programme delivery (i.e. a niche product
should not be networked as [college X] will lose out." [respondent
11]

Clearly the ability to learn and collaborate in a distributed
manner needs to be practiced as well as preached by academics who have serious
aspirations to improve the design and application of educational resources for
distributed learning.

This study has examined course design practices in the UHI
Millennium Institute and several conclusions can be drawn from the data
collected:

Firstly, the model of Collis and Moonen (2004) is reinforced as a
good conceptual model on which to base an analysis of distributed learning
courses as their "five dimensions of flexibility" correlate very closely with
the main issues raised by Course Leaders relating to the educational technology
requirements of their courses.

Secondly, the use of anticipated learning outcomes would seem to
provide a clear focus for course design that enables Course Leaders to more
easily match curriculum requirements to educational technology that is
appropriate to learners' personal requirements. There is a conflict, however,
between student-centred learning where learners are encouraged to explore their
own paths and valuation of learning when the measurement of 'successful
learning' is pre-defined by set learning outcomes before the student even
embarks upon the course.

Third, a key objective in providing more flexible access to
educational resources is to provide a mix of different technologies and
communications media in order to encourage a higher level of self-directed
learning by students. In this study it is also the preferred means of ensuring a
level of equivalence in the learning experience, especially when students are
located over a large geographical area.

Fourth, the incorporation of a face-to-face induction event for
new students, even for otherwise fully online courses, was identified as an
example of good practice to ensure that learners can attain a level of
competency and comfort with the educational technology requirements of their
course. It also helps learners to make more informed choices about when and how
to use different educational technologies.

Finally, a number of Course Leaders drew attention to their belief
that, although collaborative course design and team work is more difficult, it
is becoming an essential requirement in complex multi-media learning
environments, especially when course designers are not co-located.

It is interesting to compare these conclusions with those of Sugar
et al (2004). Although working in a different context, they found that, among
school teachers, "technology adoption is a personal decision, uninfluenced by
other people and the presence of resources or impediments in the local
school/district" (p 211). They also speculated that these personal decisions "may
reflect the isolated nature of the teaching context, a situation in which
supportive people, resources, and in-classroom training are lacking and thus
viewed as inconsequential to the technology adoption decision." (p 211) If
students are to be encouraged to be self-directed, the course design should
address their needs, not those of the teacher/course designers. Beginning by
designing the learning outcomes of a course to integrate with a flexible array
of learning resources and a sympathetic use of communications media, is one way
of encouraging a learner-driven pedagogy.

Course Designer Attitudes towards Distributed Learning

The following ten questions are designed to survey attitudes towards
Distributed Learning in UHI. We consider 'distributed learning' to mean that the
learners are geographically distributed AND that a range of learning resources
are used. We have designed this form to be filled out by course designers who
have learners that are geographically scattered - please forward to someone else
in your institution if you do not design courses or modules in this category.

1. What forms of communication does your course utilise for interaction
between tutor/teacher and learners?

Mainly

A Lot

Some

Not a Lot

Never

Face-to-face

Distance-based print materials

Email

Video conference

Audio conference

Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)

Online discussion board

Instant messaging

Skype audio

Skype video or Netmeeting

Residential attendance

CD or DVD

Other

2. When designing a new distributed course, would you agree
with the following statements?

Agree Strongly

Agree

Agree partially

Disagree

Disagree Strongly

I start from scratch

I start with a 'traditional' course format then adapt

I select the method of communication with students that I am most
comfortable with

I select the types of educational technology that I am most comfortable
with

I try to match the learning outcomes to the available learning technology

I select the most appropriate delivery style for the student then write
my course around that.

3. Before your course is taught do you

Always

Often

Sometimes

Never

Give consideration to alternative forms of media for learning materials
and activities?

Assess the individual student's technology skills

Provide an induction/training event in the technology to be used

Give consideration as to how you will measure students technological
progress

Consider how you evaluate the success of your mix of learning resources